After hearing the evidence, the jury awarded Sony, owner of the copyrights, statutory damages of $22,500 per song, for a total of $675,000.

The trial judge, perhaps in a gesture to Tenenbaum’s youth and financial situation, reduced the jury’s award of damages to $67,500, one tenth of the jury verdict.

The parties appealed and on September 16, 2011, the Court of Appeals for the First Circuit reversed the trial judge’s leniency and reinstated the full $675,000 in damages. Several appeals followed and on June 25, 2013 the US District Court upheld the full award.

Did the jury and judges make the right call? You be the judge.

According to the Copyright Act, the minimum the jury could have awarded was $750 per song for a total of $22,500. The maximum they could have awarded was $150,000 per song for a total of $4,500,000.

The court found that, as a result of music piracy, between 1999 and 2008, the recording industry as a whole suffered a fifty percent drop in both sales and revenues and Sony BMG Music Entertainment and Warner Music Group, each suffered a fifty percent reduction in workforce since 2000.

Sony brought legal actions targeting the peer-to-peer networks, rather than the individuals who actually used those networks.

These lawsuits shut down particular networks, but individual infringers just found new peer-to-peer networks. Record companies then began to identify and pursue legal actions against individual infringers.

Joel Tenenbaum began illegally downloading and distributing copyrighted songs in 1999 using Napster.

When the Napster network was shut down in 2001 for copyright infringement, Tenenbaum switched to AudioGalaxy, iMesh, Morpheus, Kazaa, and Limewire where he continued to download and distribute copyrighted songs.

Sony only decided to sue Tenenbaum for infringing thirty of its copyrights, though at trial, he eventually admitted to sharing as many as 5,000 songs.

In September 2005, Sony’s attorneys contacted Tenenbaum to resolve the claims before heading to court. But Tenenbaum continued illegally downloading and sharing songs until Sony filed suit in 2007.

Tenenbaum did not sell the tracks, but the court found his actions were nonetheless designed for his personal, private gain and could not be described as noncommercial.

Tenenbaum claimed that any number of other people, from guests to family members, could have used his computer, and that it was impossible to know who actually infringed these copyrights. That position didn't win the day.

And perhaps central to the beliefs of many who sympathize with Tenenbaum is the “no harm, no foul” defense. This argument says that, in the digital realm, copies are made from a free and inexhaustible supply, and that sharing them is just a form of free publicity that helps promote artists and record companies. In other words, Tenenbaum says, Sony needed to show real harm before getting statutory damages.

The court rejected this argument. The Copyright Act gives plaintiffs a choice of whether to ask for profits, actual damages or statutory damages. Statutory damages don’t require actual damages. Statutory damages are available even for "uninjurious and unprofitable invasions of copyright." F.W. Woolworth Co., 344 U.S. at 233.

Tenenbaum appealed the award, arguing that it violated his right to due process under the US Constitution. He claims that the real measure of harm is the cost of the stolen albums, about 30 albums at $15 dollars each.

The court rejected this argument as well, because Copyright damages aren't limited to measurable injury. They are also designed "to discourage wrongful conduct." F.W. Woolworth Co., 344 U.S. at 233.

It's the end of the line. Tenenbaum now faces a bill for the full $675,000, plus his extensive legal fees.

For Sony, though, this case isn’t about the money. It’s about sending a message.

The last spasms of a dying system. Very sad. I hope this ends soon and all settle on a new and fair system for all.

Reply

Brendan McCann

9/25/2011 09:54:05 pm

As an artist I would want copyright law right where it is, and as a consumer I think it is perfectly fair. That music is available very inexpensively for download and often free for streaming.

That said, would anyone care to elaborate? What aspects aren't fair to you? If you were in charge, how would you structure the system?

Reply

Jonathan Minkoff

9/26/2011 05:08:54 am

Copyright owners are being ripped off left and right.

Since 2000, major labels have fired *half* their staffs.

I have a hard time sympathizing with people who steal out of simple convenience. (Although, I do believe that smaller fines and faster trials would assist in enforcement and therefore deterence).

Illegal downloading is a tipping problem. Some people will steal easily (sociopaths). Those people are few. Others will steal only when they believe "everyone is doing it". Those people are many. Right now, everyone is doing it so many people steal.

The situation will change in one of two ways: either the costs will be passed on to all consumers in the form of a tax or fee so that everyone purchasing internet service pays something for the "all-you-can-eat-buffet" of music.

Or will will strongly enhance enforcement by forcing internet providers to track who we are and what we do.

Like our war on terror, that cure will be worse than the disease.

I strongly favor the first solution since I value privacy. But one way or the other lawlessness can't stand.

I should thank you for writing on this topic, very useful information you have given through this blog regarding illegal copy of music.

Reply

VOXLEO

6/16/2013 07:24:03 am

The RIAA is evil and has outlived its already limited usefulness. Copyright is being ABUSED by these corporations in the name of greed and ... well, greed. The damages awarded for this case are insane even at the reduced level, and are not commensurate with the crime, if you even acknowledge the act as a crime in the first place.

The biggest folly behind the Recording Industry's claim to anything at all is this mistaken, or rather, WHOLLY INCORRECT assumption that a download is a sale that they otherwise would have collected from. This is patently false, as many downloaders also already own the purchased item but don't always have access to it, or actually BUY the tracks that they otherwise never even would have heard were it not for the peer exchange "stealing" since it is a different marketplace than the one that they used to create false scarcity in and negotiate their payolla playlists for the handful of popular stations to play. These producers are pocketing most of the cash, not the artist. Now that the artist has a more direct line to the audience via the internet and vehicles for self promotion such as you tube and filesharing, the specialized "services" that the labels used to provide (read: make deals that were far more favorable to their own pockets than the artists or their music) are not even necessary to make your own album and market it.

The RIAA likes to claim that downloading is what is killing their business, but they never seem to understand how they killed it themselves by refusing to adapt to the new tech and moreso by failing to do their own jobs well by finding and promoting talented acts and connecting them to their potential audiences.

Around the time the Megacorps started the change in terminology from "customer" to "consumer" they also stopped producing "music" and became "content" providers. That shift entailed the heavy use of a travesty called "Autotune" (but SEE? They DO know how to use SOME tech to suit their own agendas. They aren't completely oblivious to its existence...). With that, however, the industry began to cannibalize itself as the finding of new talent and taking risks became a daunting task when compared with manufacturing formula crowd pleasing synthetic "artists" molded from Disney kid Mickey Mouse Club clay and derivative pop music (using the term LOOSELY) with all the substance of cotton candy. The tripe they have churned out with boy band after boy band is horribad for the last decade or more. THAT is why music sales are in the toilet, NOT because the people are stealing the Beatles White album online. How much you wanna bet that the stuff Sony actually sues for is mostly pre-1997 released?

They are just trying to squeeze blood from a rock(er) at this point.

And guess what? All that suing they did and money that they extorted from grandmas and preteens and college kids via the US court system (which is overloaded with frivolous crap like this already, and reducing our country's efficacy for IMPORTANT stuff in the process) collected from the ridiculous punitive damages? THE ARTISTS GOT NONE OF IT.

I play the worlds smallest violin for the whining of the Copyright trolling thugs. Boo hoo. ( Now get with the program and die already... )